Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geography of India/archive1
Geography of India[edit]
This was a recent Indian collaboration of the week. Although this time is isn't a total self-nom; I did write about 80% of the prose in this article in two days flat! The collaboration also involved User:IMpbt who helped immensely, and to a certain extent User:Guptadeepak. Also thank all those who helped add, critiqued, copy edited & NPOV'd the text. I wish I could cut down the length of this article; but alas, couldn't put my summary skills into use, as all mentioned points were necessary. (PS I've also drawn the maps). ☺ =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Wonderful job on the maps. Now to read and vote... slambo 20:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I've read through it now and can lend my Support.
One additional comment, however, on measurement units. Most of the article uses metric units, but there are a few conversions to imperial units scattered throughout the text. If you're going to show conversions, show them all or stick with one set of units.slambo 00:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very thorough and well-written (nice work with the prose!), and great use of pictures throughout. A good geography candidate for FA. Harro5 21:25, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This looks good and reads well.
I note that the footnotes are inconsistent in style, which I would like to see fixed. --Theo (Talk) 22:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Support, I agree that the refs should be a consistent format, also the rivers section is disjointed and difficult to understand and needs to be tidied up. --nixie 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Refs are displayed according to Wikipedia:Cite your sources. I've modified it slighty. Is this what you were looking for? =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Why discuss both classification systems when they're basically the same? Also names appear in the text and then appear later as wikilinks, shouldn't the first use of the name be the wikilink?--nixie 00:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Refs are displayed according to Wikipedia:Cite your sources. I've modified it slighty. Is this what you were looking for? =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is that one is based on where the rivers originate and the other on where they flow. The second section was added independently of the first, so we still have to bring the sections to line. Any proposed solutions would be welcome--IMpbt 02:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A very well-written article. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support.
Object. I'll support iff all measurements are given in standrad as well as metric units.Otherwise an excellent article. Excellent job. --Neutralitytalk 05:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)- Done =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for the rapid response. I now lend my full support. Neutralitytalk 16:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Done =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Object. Various verbal infelicities which I'm working through and fixing myself- I'll try not to do anything too drastic. It's rather misleading to say that Indonesia is an "island nation to the south of India"; that needs fixing in some way or other.Mark1 08:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: there is a color coding problem on Image:India-naturalhazards-map.png; I suppose "Draught prone" in the legend should be orange-brown. Also, the color boxes in the legend are not aligned properly. The caption of Image:Talmarg.jpg.jpg (what's up with this filename?) reads "Snow is only received in elevated regions.", which I find a bit obvious. Lupo 08:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've corrected the colour, but since I've rasterised the layers, I can't align the key. I've also removed the snow image. =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. As a co-author (mostly adding info, copy editing), the article still needs some work in terms of corrections and clean up (mostly minor and in sections) before it becomes a FA. -- Impbt
Object. The "notes" section has two problems: (1) the notes numbers don't matchup, and (2) the section includes several entries which should go into a "references" section. Paul August ☎ 19:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed; added inline and non-inline references under =References=. =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Well this is better, but I'm not particularly happy with the mixed format of the "References" section. Also why is this reference "The Land (.doc), The Great Mountains of the North" be considered reliable? Who is the author? Where is it from? As far as I can tell it is just some random page from the web. Paul August ☎ 15:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that there might be some issues so referenced it from an official govt of India article. BTW, the previous reference was credible, as they publish texts for schools (See: [1]). I've crosschecked other references in the original article. The references also have been sorted. =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Now there is both a "Notes" section (using "ref/note" style notes) and a "Footnotes" section (using "mn/mnb" style notes). They should be combined into one section (preferably called "Notes" and placed after the "References" section) and a single note style chosen (I happen to prefer the look of "mn'mnb" over "ref/note" — actually I like "rf/ent" style notes the best). Every reference mentioned in the notes should be listed in the "References" section with complete bibliographic info (currently I think they all are, except for the "Physical Divisions" reference mentioned in note 1). Then each reference mentioned in the notes can be shortened to just a citation (and link, if the citation is to an online source — which all of them are currently). Paul August ☎ 20:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- 1) I've displayed all references in the =note= section according to a template so I can't shorten that. 2) I don't support merging the =footnote= with other sections as it is a clarification of a point, not a reference. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Thanks for your suggestions. =Nichalp (Talk)= 12:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Well it will be very confusing to have both a "Notes" section and a "Footnotes" section. For example when readers see: "Afghanistan1" how will they know whether it refers to note 1, or footnote 1? If an editor wants to annotate a piece of text, where should it go, in the "Notes" section or the "Footnotes" section? As used on Wikipedia, these two terms are virtually synonymous. I think this is essentially unworkable. From your comment, I think you might be confusing notes with references. As I use the term, a reference is a source which is used to write the article, and all references should be collected together in a bulleted list in a "References" section, with all the bibliographic information necessary for a reader to easily identify and find the source. Notes (also called footnotes or endnotes, depending on placement) are for any information that you want to associate with a piece of text, but which you don't want inline, for example some clarifying text, and/or to cite (i.e. point to) a reference listed in the "References" section, in which case, since the reference is already listed completely there, the note doesn't have to repeat all the bibliographic information — and consider you may have several notes which cite the same reference. Thus for example the text for Note 2 can be shortened to just be "Deccan Plateau", since the first item in the "References" section has the rest of the source information. Also a citation given in a note can give more specific "chapter and verse" information (e.g. Smith p. 5) to point the reader to a specific part of the cited reference work. For an example of how all of this can be done see Attalus I. Paul August ☎ 14:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok. I finally get what you mean. I wasn't aware that inline references were also considered to be notes. User:TheoClarke has addressed the problem. Thank you for enlightening me on the differences. I'll do the same for my future articles. Regards, =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad to have been able to help. I think the article is better now. Paul August ☎ 16:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Well it will be very confusing to have both a "Notes" section and a "Footnotes" section. For example when readers see: "Afghanistan1" how will they know whether it refers to note 1, or footnote 1? If an editor wants to annotate a piece of text, where should it go, in the "Notes" section or the "Footnotes" section? As used on Wikipedia, these two terms are virtually synonymous. I think this is essentially unworkable. From your comment, I think you might be confusing notes with references. As I use the term, a reference is a source which is used to write the article, and all references should be collected together in a bulleted list in a "References" section, with all the bibliographic information necessary for a reader to easily identify and find the source. Notes (also called footnotes or endnotes, depending on placement) are for any information that you want to associate with a piece of text, but which you don't want inline, for example some clarifying text, and/or to cite (i.e. point to) a reference listed in the "References" section, in which case, since the reference is already listed completely there, the note doesn't have to repeat all the bibliographic information — and consider you may have several notes which cite the same reference. Thus for example the text for Note 2 can be shortened to just be "Deccan Plateau", since the first item in the "References" section has the rest of the source information. Also a citation given in a note can give more specific "chapter and verse" information (e.g. Smith p. 5) to point the reader to a specific part of the cited reference work. For an example of how all of this can be done see Attalus I. Paul August ☎ 14:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- 1) I've displayed all references in the =note= section according to a template so I can't shorten that. 2) I don't support merging the =footnote= with other sections as it is a clarification of a point, not a reference. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Thanks for your suggestions. =Nichalp (Talk)= 12:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Well this is better, but I'm not particularly happy with the mixed format of the "References" section. Also why is this reference "The Land (.doc), The Great Mountains of the North" be considered reliable? Who is the author? Where is it from? As far as I can tell it is just some random page from the web. Paul August ☎ 15:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed; added inline and non-inline references under =References=. =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Will support once this is addressed. Good article, and well illustrated, BTW. Phils 20:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support I haven't gone through all the recent edits done to the article, but it seems good and informative. Good job User:Nichalp --IncMan 15:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)